NFHS 2017-18 Rules Changes

[SC Official]

Rich made a good point about arguing the warning.

Walt, to confirm, a misconduct warning will be the entire bench's one warning, regardless of whether the offender is the head coach, an assistant, sub, etc., correct?

I do envision head coaches being more inclined to control their benches once I slap a warning for an assistant acting up.

[walt]

Everyone's line of tolerance is different and will always be different. However, once the warning is issued, the line is brightly drawn. A coach going to the endline to tell an official what he/she thinks of a particular call(s) could, and under this rule, probably should result in a warning at a minimum. The warning is a very effective tool if used properly. I can see a lot of officials using it because it shifts the burden for behavior back to the coach. If he/she is not smart enough to abide by it, that is on them, not us.

According to my guys, yes, a warning for one (assistant, bench player, etc) is a warning for all. However, comments from the bench can warrant a T without warning as can comments from a head coach. Each of us will have to determine and pre-game what we will warn for and what we will consider egregious.

[JRutledge]

I equate this with the "Stop sign" that everyone loves to tell others how great and universal it is when used properly.

So why would we agree on the usage of this tool?

Peace

[walt]

Because for some people who are uncomfortable or not sure how to interact or communicate with coaches now have a way to do that without a "stop sign" or any communication. They simply blow the whistle, "He/She has been warned'" and then go tell the scorer. I think people will be more comfortable doing that then having to actually communicate.

May be good or bad.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by walt

Because for some people who are uncomfortable or not sure how to interact or communicate with coaches now have a way to do that without a "stop sign" or any communication. They simply blow the whistle, "He/She has been warned'" and then go tell the scorer. I think people will be more comfortable doing that then having to actually communicate.

May be good or bad.

The stop sign did not work and does not work for everyone. Heck some just because of their size do not have to do things as someone that is much shorter for a lot of reasons.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by walt

Because for some people who are uncomfortable or not sure how to interact or communicate with coaches now have a way to do that without a "stop sign" or any communication. They simply blow the whistle, "He/She has been warned'" and then go tell the scorer. I think people will be more comfortable doing that then having to actually communicate.

May be good or bad.

I agree. My first thought when I heard about the change was, "great, now they're going to expect it every time." In reality, this gives us an officially prescribed tool. Many officials struggle with how to effectively issue those unwritten verbal warnings. By "effectively," I mean in a way that doesn't automatically escalate it to a T.

Very rarely do we need to call a T where we never had an opportunity to issue a warning. Add in the ability to stop play to issue an official warning, and that possibility almost goes away completely.

With this in place, the ones where we have to skip the warnings will call themselves.

Originally Posted by SC Official

I do envision head coaches being more inclined to control their benches once I slap a warning for an assistant acting up.

True! Plus if a head coach is acting up, I usually find that their assistants are as well. So I can slap a warning on the assistant and hopefully the head coach will get the picture. Boom.